4.5 Review

Carvedilol Therapy After Cocaine-Induced Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Asthma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 342, 期 1, 页码 56-61

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182087347

关键词

Cocaine; Myocardial infarction; Carvedilol; Asthma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Cocaine-induced myocardial infarction (MI) is well documented. Current literature recommends avoiding beta-blockers in the acute care setting, but after discharge from the hospital, benefits of beta-blocker use may outweigh risks in patients with recent MI resulting from cocaine use. Cardioselective beta-blocker therapy has been demonstrated to be beneficial in post-MI patients with nonsevere asthma. This review article is to compare the risks and benefits of using carvedilol in patients with asthma who have had cocaine-induced MI. Methods: The authors searched the English literature from 1984 to July 2010 via PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS using the following search terms: cocaine-induced myocardial infarction AND treatment, cocaine AND carvedilol, beta blockers AND asthma, and carvedilol AND asthma. All studies and case reports related to carvedilol use associated with bronchospasm in patients with asthma and carvedilol use after cocaine-induced MI were included. Results: Carvedilol has theoretical advantages in patients who use cocaine, but there are no controlled studies confirming the superior efficacy of this agent. Reports of carvedilol use in patients with asthma are rare, but findings include increased asthma symptoms and hospitalization in some patients. Fatal asthma has also been reported because of this noncardioselective beta-blocker. Conclusions: Based on a lack of evidence supporting the theoretical advantages but documented risks associated with its use in patients with asthma, carvedilol should be avoided in asthma patients who have a history of cocaine-induced MI. Cardioselective beta-blockers should be used in post-MI patients with nonsevere asthma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据